September 20, 2012

Die-Ner (Get It?)

by Franz Patrick

Die-Ner (Get It?) (2009)
★ / ★★★★

Rose (Maria Olsen), a lonely waitress in a diner during a graveyard shift, was regaled by Ken (Joshua Grote), a guy with a friendly voice, interested tone, and modest looks. Because Ken was so engaging, Rose found herself being comfortable with the stranger… until he revealed that he was a serial killer. After Ken killed Rose and the cook, a couple facing marital problems walked in. Kathy (Liesel Kopp), ordering water, didn’t want to talk about it because she claimed to be tired. Rob (Parker Quinn), ordering coffee, insisted that they discussed the problem immediately. Meanwhile, the waitress and the cook, looking dead, somehow got out of the freezer and lumbered toward Ken. Written and directed by Patrick Horvath, “Die-ner (Get It?)” began so promisingly but ultimately disappointed. There was a certain romanticism in the interaction between Rose and Ken as she informed him of her origins and how she ended up working in the middle of nowhere. Olsen wasn’t classically pretty but I loved looking at her and the way she delivered her lines from when she stood until she sat down to be on the stranger’s eye level. It was appropriate because I consider diners to be a romantic place, a haven of sweet-smelling pancakes and steamy mashed potatoes where all sort of strangers gather, eat, converse, and leave–a place of transition. I enjoyed the way it turned very dark as the waitress realized that the man she just started to trust turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There was horror in the way her expectations were played with and crushed. But from the moment the zombies were shown, my level of frustration toward the material climbed to a boiling point. While I appreciated that the characters knew what a zombie was, it didn’t make sense that they did not seem to have any background knowledge about them. For instance, they tried to kill the zombies but not one was quick to suggest to put a bullet in a walking dead’s head. If the script allowed its characters to recognize a zombie, why not also make them be aware of their weaknesses according to pop culture? By doing so, it would’ve given its own twists more power and impact. The zombies were not the only threat. Naturally, Rob and Kathy considered Ken to be a big danger after he admitted that he murdered the diner’s staff. The man with the gun, Ken, was shown as not always the one in charge. It was a good decision because it gave us hope that there was a possibility of escape for the couple. There were times when Ken was hit on the head and lost consciousness for a few minutes. However, this was around the point when I started to yell frustrations at the screen. Why didn’t Kathy and Rob make sure that the murderer, once he woke up, could never again get the upper hand? Personally, and it’s understandable if you don’t agree, I would have shot one of Ken’s kneecaps. Once I knew he would not be able to come after me, if none of the cars parked in the parking lot worked nor had keys in them, I would run toward the freeway and find help. It was unfortunate that the writer-director put too many limitations on his characters, as if the zombies had already eaten their brains. With movies similar to this, it’s so difficult to root for someone who doesn’t seem to have an instinct for survival. It is absolutely understandable if a character chooses to turn to savagery in order to preserve his or her life. It’s much better than watching a character running around like an idiot, just waiting to be killed. “Die-ner (Get It?)” was neither scary nor darkly amusing enough to pardon its glaring weaknesses in logic and entertainment value. At least it didn’t mistaken gore for horror.

“It was appropriate because I consider diners to be a romantic place, a haven of sweet-smelling pancakes and steamy mashed potatoes where all sort of strangers gather, eat, converse, and leave–a place of transition.”
That’s some good writing – better than the film probably deserves! :D

I appreciate the compliment. Thank you!! You know, this movie made me think of the kinds of movies I stumble upon your website: the ones that are little known/forgotten horror movies. Which reminds me… I need another recommendation so I’ll be checking in.

Subscribe

HAL 9000

374,589 Readers

Great Directors

Steven Spielberg
People have forgotten how to tell a story. Stories don't have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning.

I'm as guilty as anyone, because I helped to herald the digital era with "Jurassic Park." But the danger is that it can be abused to the point where nothing is eye-popping any more. The difference between making "Jaws" thirty-one years ago and "War of the Worlds" is that today, anything I can imagine, I can realize on film. Then, when my mechanical shark was being repaired and I had to shoot something, I had to make the water scary. I relied on the audience's imagination, aided by where I put the camera. Today, it would be a digital shark. It would cost a hell of a lot more, but never break down. As a result, I probably would have used it four times as much, which would have made the film four times less scary. "Jaws" is scary because of what you don't see, not because of what you do. We need to bring the audience back into partnership with storytelling.

I've discovered I've got this preoccupation with ordinary people pursued by large forces.

Stanley Kubrick
If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed.

I've always been interested in ESP and the paranormal. In addition to the scientific experiments which have been conducted suggesting that we are just short of conclusive proof of its existence, I'm sure we've all had the experience of opening a book at the exact page we're looking for, or thinking of a friend a moment before they ring on the telephone. But "The Shining" didn't originate from any particular desire to do a film about this. I thought it was one of the most ingenious and exciting stories of the genre I had read. It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy." This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.

I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want.

Werner Herzog
What would an ocean be without a monster lurking in the dark? It would be like sleep without dreams.

It is not only my dreams, my belief is that all these dreams are yours as well. The only distinction between me and you is that I can articulate them. And that is what poetry or painting or literature or filmmaking is all about… and it is my duty because this might be the inner chronicle of what we are. We have to articulate ourselves, otherwise we would be cows in the field.

Your film is like your children. You might want a child with certain qualities, but you are never going to get the exact specification right. The film has a privilege to live its own life and develop its own character. To suppress this is dangerous. It is an approach that works the other way too: sometimes the footage has amazing qualities that you did not expect.

Alfred Hitchcock
Four people are sitting around a table talking about baseball or whatever you like. Five minutes of it. Very dull. Suddenly, a bomb goes off. Blows the people to smithereens. What does the audience have? Ten seconds of shock. Now, take the same scene and tell the audience there is a bomb under that table and will go off in five minutes. The whole emotion of the audience is totally different because you've given them that information. In five minutes time that bomb will go off. Now the conversation about baseball becomes very vital. Because they're saying to you, "Don't be ridiculous. Stop talking about baseball. There's a bomb under there." You've got the audience working.

There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.

Ken Loach
Why do they say I hate my country? And what does that even mean? Am I supposed to hate my town, am I supposed to hate all English people, or my government? And if I do hate my government, does that mean I hate my country? It's a democratic duty to criticize the government.

A movie isn't a political movement, a party, or even an article. It's just a film. At best it can add its voice to public outrage.

Pedro Almodóvar
Yes, women are stronger than us. They face more directly the problems that confront them, and for that reason they are much more spectacular to talk about. I don't know why I am more interested in women, because I don't go to any psychiatrists, and I don't want to know why.

I think decor says a lot about someone's social position, their taste, their sensibility, their work, and also about the aesthetic way I have chosen to tell their story.

My school and the cinema were only a few buildings apart on the same street. The bad education I received at school was rectified when I went to the cinema. My religion became the cinema. Of course one could create one's own belief system, and anything that helps or supports you in life can be seen as covering the function of religion. In that sense you could consider cinema my religion, because it is one of my major stimuli that I have for living. Cinema has that aspect of devotion to saints and idolatry as well. In that sense it is entirely religious.

Terrence Malick
Experience it like a walk in the countryside. You’ll probably be bored or have other things in mind, but perhaps you will be struck, suddenly, by a feeling, by an act, by a unique portrait of nature.

Louis Malle
You must find the note, the correct key, for your story. If you find it, everything will work. If you do not, everything will stick out like elbows.

I think predictability has become the rule and I'm completely the opposite--I like spectators to be disturbed.

Martin Scorsese
When I did "The Age of Innocence," the critics said, "Is it wrong to expect a little more heat from Scorsese?" I thought "The Age of Innocence" was pretty hot. So I said, "Alright, I'll do 'Casino,'" and they said, "Well, gee, it's the same as 'Goodfellas.'" You can't win. Yes, "Casino" has the style of "GoodFellas," but it has more to do with America--and even Hollywood: the idea of never being satisfied.

"L'avventura" gave me one of the most profound shocks I've ever had at the movies, greater even than "Breathless" or "Hiroshima, mon amour." Or "La dolce vita". At the time there were two camps, the people who liked the Fellini film and the ones who liked "L'avventura." I knew I was firmly on Antonioni's side of the line, but if you'd asked me at the time, I'm not sure I would have been able to explain why. I loved Fellini's pictures and I admired "La dolce vita," but I was challenged by "L'avventura." Fellini's film moved me and entertained me, but Antonioni's film changed my perception of cinema, and the world around me, and made both seem limitless. I was mesmerized by "L'avventura" and by Antonioni's subsequent films, and it was the fact that they were unresolved in any conventional sense that kept drawing me back. They posed mysteries--or, rather, the mystery of who we are, what we are, to each other, to ourselves, to time. You could say that Antonioni was looking directly at the mysteries of the soul.

The cinema began with a passionate, physical relationship between celluloid and the artists and craftsmen and technicians who handled it, manipulated it, and came to know it the way a lover comes to know every inch of the body of the beloved. No matter where the cinema goes, we cannot afford to lose sight of its beginnings.

Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
In "L'enfant," we have a main character, Bruno, a man who cannot be a father, who is never able to be a father, and it feels like at the end of the movie he at last became a father. Well, I’m not sure things will be OK afterwards. But it seems like when they’re in the prison, where people can speak with their families, I think he says, “How’s Jimmy, how is he doing?” Well, he never said the name of the kid before. It means that he has changed. Because of the kid that he has saved from the water, Steve, he became someone else. It takes time. So we felt that it was the right moment to end the movie. Our movies are like portraits.

We haven’t found any place or room for music in our movies. Maybe because we are not able to find the right music, I don’t know. And when we’re shooting, I think that’s where things happen actually. When we’re building our plans, et cetera, the rhythm of that construction is partly based on the sounds, not only the dialogues, but touching the objects. And rhythm is based on the sounds that we can hear on the set, the noise of the bodies moving, the breathing of the characters, that’s our music. We just don’t see the need for music. When we’re shooting we just don’t think about it.

I think one of the big wishes of the human kind is to transform things, to work on things to construct, to destroy, to sometimes construct again. And not only to look at the world, let’s say, passively. I think that’s the aim of humankind, being a man, a woman, is to change things. And cinema is about showing things that are changing.

Quentin Tarantino
If you're a film fan, collecting video is sort of like marijuana. Laser discs, they're definitely cocaine. Film prints are heroin, all right? You're shooting smack when you start collecting film prints. So, I kinda got into it in a big way, and I've got a pretty nice collection I'm real proud of.

The exploitation films were made in such an artless way with these big wide shots of Sunset Boulevard or of Arcadia or downtown L.A. or wherever. In mainstream films, especially in the 1980s, the Los Angeles you saw wasn't the real one; it was a character with this backlot sort of atmosphere. They tried to luxuriate it. In exploitation films, you see what the place really looked like, you see the bars and mom-and-pop restaurants.

I've had people write that I've seen too many movies. In what other art form would being an expert be considered a negative? If I were a poet, would I be criticized for knowing too much about Sappho? Or Aristotle?